Question about trenches domination 1914 no mans land

Ramon

Me and a group of people are making a map based on the map "domination 1914 no mans land" (project red-orange)

Quick question regarding map making and trench mechanics.

We are trying to recplicate the trenches: a 2 hp unit with zero defensive value (without the bunkers research, which isnt relevant right now)

everything works, with 1 exception:

In our map, attacking a territory with only trenches forces a full, round by round battle. In domination, these battles resolve automatically.

Our unitattachment and properties are identical to the original map, we cant find any special triggers or attachments.

Could this be a different engine version, or is there something we might have missed?

(also for anyone reading who doesnt know a lot about map making but wants to help play testing we are always looking for new playtesters!)

~Ramon

the unitattachment:

beelee

@Ramon

Hi Ramon

What triplea engine are you using ? If it's the latest, you might try using the old 2.5.

You could also try using the old Domination with the new engine version or whichever version you are using.

Might let you know if it's engine related then.

I don't think you can remove the defense completely. You can try it but I think it throws an error.

@wc_sumpton would probably know or @rogercooper

RogerCooper

@Ramon Are you limiting the number of rounds for battles?

wc_sumpton

@ramon

Is property "Transport Casualties Restricted" set?

Cheers...

beelee

@wc_sumpton said:

Transport Casualties Restricted

Hi WC

What does that one do ?

wc_sumpton

@beelee said:

What does that one do ?

From my understanding this setting restricted the taking of 0 attack/0 defense units as fodder during combat, and allows these units to be auto-destroyed if there are no accompanying units.

Cheers...

beelee

@wc_sumpton

ahh maybe it only works if the battle starts out that way ? After the hitters are dead, you still have to roll to kill them ?

I will test

Ramon

@wc_sumpton

Thank you for your response!

Turns out that setting was indeed not enabled.

Once i enable this setting i'm running into another issue. In our mod, transports have 1 defense and battlecruisers are able to transport 1 inf. However this setup appears to be incompatible, im recieving the following error:

Validation errors parsing game-XML file: C:\Users\ramon\triplea\downloadedMaps\war_plan_red_orange\war_plan_red_orange\map\games\War_Plan_Red_Orange.xml, errors: Restricted transports cannot have attack or defense, , for: UnitAttachment attached to: UnitType{name=transport} with name: unitAttachment Restricted transports cannot have attack or defense, , for: UnitAttachment attached to: UnitType{name=battlecruiser} with name: unitAttachment

this makes sense, if i understand correctly i cant restrict transport casaulties and making them have 1 defense.

Is there a way to make these features compatible?

Thank you!

wc_sumpton

@Ramon

Try "isCombatTransport" for those units that can transport and also participate in battle.

Cheers...

Ramon

@wc_sumpton

Thanks a lot!

I hope im not asking too much,

We are implementing landmines and currently i have the following unit attachment set up:

Right now landmines behave like Anti-aircraft against troops (first strike and hitting a set number of units, which is intentional), but they also have 1 hp

In a perfect situation the landmine should act like a normal AA (like the one in domination), but once the territory is captured it should destroy itself.

I have looked at other maps, but i couldnt find any that implement landmines in this way. Do you know if this is possible?

I tried making it a suicide unit, this didnt work, they all suicide after 1 infantry attacks them.

If i make them non-suicide the enemy can capture them

I appreciate your help, cheers!

wc_sumpton

@Ramon

Try something like this:

<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="landmine" javaClass="UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
<!-- <option name="defense" value="0"/> removed -->
<!-- <option name="attack" value="0"/> removed -->
<!-- <option name="isAA" value="true"/> removed -->
<!-- Expanding "isAA" values -->
<option name="isAAforCombatOnly" value="true"/>
<option name="isAAforFlyOverOnly" value="true"/>
<option name="typeAA" value="Landmines"/>
<option name="attackAA" value="1"/>
<option name="maxAAattacks" value="6"/>
<option name="targetsAA" value="infantry:tank:cavalry"/>
<option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/> <!-- Changed so units can't be taken as fodder -->
<!-- <option name="isFirstStrike" value="true"/> removed -->
<option name="isConstruction" value="true"/>
<option name="constructionType" value="Landmines"/> <!-- Changed -->
<option name="constructionsPerTerrPerTypePerTurn" value="1"/>
<option name="maxConstructionsPerTypePerTerr" value="10"/>
<!-- The following is added so that mines operate on defense -->
<option name="isSuicideOnDefense" value="true"/>
<!-- only those units that gets a hit are removed -->
<option name="isSuicideOnHit" value="true"/>
<!-- Unit can not be captured -->
<option name="destroyedWhenCapturedBy" value="BY:$ListOfAllPlayers$"/>
</attachment>

Also "Units Can Be Destroyed Instead Of Captured" will need to be set.

Cheers...

Ramon

@wc_sumpton

thanks a lot!

So far it seems to work perfectly!

Ramon

@wc_sumpton

I have a couple of questions regarding the map development:

Is it possible that sea zones have production value that transfers to the occupier

For example, i currently have this:

but this doesnt make the production value transferable to the occupier, am i missing something here?

I also have a question about tech:

In this setup, when the Chinese research tanks, they unluck zeppelin. Is it also possible to do the opposite? So that unlocking tanks would disable or lock out the zeppelin instead of enabling it?

Cheers!

~Ramon

wc_sumpton

@Ramon said:

but this doesnt make the production value transferable to the occupier, am i missing something here?

I don't understand what is meant by 'transferable'. Sea Zones, by default do not have owners. Maybe use 'originalOwner' or within '<ownerInitialize>' section may help.

The setup would be the same, but use:
<option name="availableTech" value="Zeppelins:-zeppelin"/>
Please note the "-" (minus sign/dash) before zeppelin, this will remove zeppelin from the Zeppelins category. If zeppelin can be added later just check that tank research is false, prior to adding zeppelin.

Cheers...

beelee

@Ramon

Hi Ramon

You could try something like this

Screenshot from 2026-08-01 23-27-56.png

I don't have a production value set but you can see that Japan controls 6 SZ. If USA takes control of the SZ it will then show them as the Owner.

You might need to activate some properties. This is based on the Global 40 game.

You can also kinda do it with convoy zones. They work a little different. If you control certain TTys, then the corresponding SZ's PU value will go to the player controlling the TTys or vice versa. I can't remember.

But I think if you just give a production value to what I posted/screenshot it should work

Edit
Hmm ... that looks like what you already have. I'm trying to test but now triplea is throwing an error at me lol

Edit 2
Yea so I don't think you can do what you want

Screenshot from 2026-08-02 00-27-31.png

What you may be able to do and it'd be kind of a hack, is have a condition showing control of the SZ e.g. USA Units present no JPN Units present in the SZ and have it activate a trigger that gives the desired bonus income/value of the TTy

TheDog

@Ramon
I have been working on a new FFA map and realised that SZ PU were not transferring ownership when taken over from their original owner.

There is a lot of work to do to make this happen.
You need a <variableList> for
List of Players, All-Players
List of Sea Zones, All-SZ

and this code

<!-- Change current SZ owner to originalOwner -->
    <attachment foreach="$All-Players$^$All-SZ$" name="conditionAttachment_SZ_@All-Players@_@All-SZ@" attachTo="@All-Players@" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
		<option name="directOwnershipTerritories" value="@All-SZ@" count="1"/>
    </attachment>
	<attachment foreach="$All-Players$^$All-SZ$" name="triggerAttachment_SZ_@All-Players@_@All-SZ@" attachTo="@All-Players@" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
		<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_SZ_@All-Players@_@All-SZ@"/>
		<option name="territories" value="@All-SZ@"/>
		<option name="territoryAttachmentName" value="TerritoryAttachment" count="territoryAttachment"/>
		<option name="territoryProperty" value="originalOwner" count="@All-Players@"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:@All-Players@1EndTurn"/>
	</attachment>

This is not fully tested as I cannot get it to work on an old map 1888A Steam & Steel, but it works for my new map

However, it takes the current SZ owner and makes it the originalOwner, before the EndTurn for each player. Note I have a 1 in front of EndTurn. In your case this can be removed.

This will allow SZ PU to be collected for the owning (now original) player.
Hope it works for you

Ramon

Hi, @TheDog

Thanks a lot for your response!

I made the following changes:

-added the variable list all players/all sz.
-added your code:

However i'm not getting it to work correctly.

The seazones flips to the occupier as intended, but the PUs do not transfer (the original owner does lose the PUs)

for reference, each sea zone is defined like this:

each sz is defined like this:
<territoryOwner territory="Sea Zone 1 Hudson Bay" owner="British"/>

am i missing something, or could this be due to the map being outdated?

Cheers!

Ramon

Hi, @wc_sumpton

Thanks a lot for your response,

The minus signal works perfectly! Thanks!

About the Sea Zones, to clarify:

In this map, we want Sea Zones to have a value of 1 PU. When an opponent captures a Sea Zones, the PU should transfer accordingly, so that the new owner receives 1 production each turn.

Cheers!

Ramon

Hi, @beelee

Thanks a lot about the research and suggestions!

It doesnt seem to work in the usual way, but it could be made to work with triggers (as the dog suggested).

I just wanted to thank you for your help and thinking along with me.

Cheers!